Pemikiran Yahudi Yunus 2:11: Akeidat Yitzchak & Guide for the Perplexed

The difference between angel and man lies in the freedom of will possessed by man and the absence of such freedom of choice in angels. Man is able to rise or fall morally, ethically; angels remain forever on the same plateau. Rashi and Onkelos say what they say in addition to the peshat, the plain meaning of the verse. They do so to forestall the impression that G-d is described as talking to Himself or to any of His non existent partners. We find many instances when Onkelos translates elokim as "angels of G-d," such as Jacob saying "I have seen elokim face to face" (Genesis 32,31). In the case of the serpent using this term, seeing the serpent does not have encounters with angels, the term refers simply to elokim as the Creator and His power. Even the she-ass of Bileam did not see the angel as an angel (Numbers 22). It only saw him as a threatening obstruction. Had this not been so, she would not have said to Bileam, "Do I usually act in this fashion?" She would have said, "The angel of the Lord has prevented me."

The case that the will of an animal or its desire for some of its natural wants is the cause of some event, may be illustrated by the following instance: “And God spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah” (ii. 11). The act is ascribed to God, because He gave the fish the will, and not because He made it a prophet or endowed it with a prophetical spirit. Similarly it is said of the locusts that appeared in the days of Joel, son of Pethuel, “Mighty is he that accomplishes his word” (Joel 2:11); or of the beasts that took possession of the land of Edom when destroyed in the days of Sennacherib, “He cast lot for them, and his hand divided it unto them by a line” (Isa. 34:27). Although here the verbs “to say,” “to command,” “to send,” are not used, the meaning is evidently the same, and you must explain all passages that are analogous to it in a similar manner.